Volume 14, Number 3
June 2009
This publication for child
welfare professionals is pro-duced
by the North Carolina
Division of Social Services and
the Family and Children’s Re-source
Program, part of the
Jordan Institute for Families
within the School of Social
Work at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In summarizing research, we try
to give you new ideas for refin-ing
your practice. However, this
publication is not intended to
replace child welfare training,
regular supervision, or peer
consultation—only to enhance
them.
Let us hear from you!
To comment about something
that appears in Practice Notes,
please contact:
John McMahon
Jordan Institute for Families
School of Social Work
UNC–Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
jdmcmaho@email.unc.edu
Newsletter Staff
Mellicent Blythe
Lane Cooke
John McMahon
Visit Our Website
www.practicenotes.org
References for the articles in
this issue can be found at
<www.practicenotes.org>
CHILD WELFARE’S RESPONSE TO DIVERSITY
Rising diversity might be seen by some as
unwelcome news for the child welfare sys-tem,
since it is clear we are already strug-gling
with this issue. For example, we are
trying to understand and respond to the phe-nomenon
of disproportionality, which oc-curs
when children from some groups (e.g.,
African Americans, American Indians) are
represented in the child welfare system in
greater numbers than they are in the gen-eral
population (Hill, 2006). Data suggest
disproportionality is decreasing in North
Carolina, but it is still a significant concern
(Duncan, et al., 2009).
Another indicator that the child welfare
system is struggling with diversity is the ex-istence
of racial disparity in service provi-sion—
the fact that families and children from
some minority groups receive inferior treat-ment.
For example, although when class and
other risk factors are controlled for African
Americans have lower rates of abuse and
neglect than whites (Sedlak & Schultz,
2005), African American children are far
more likely to be substantiated for maltreat-ment
and removed from their homes than
white children (CDF, 2006; Derezotes &
Poertner, 2001).
THE US CENSUS BUREAU PREDICTS THAT BY 2050 . . .
• Minorities, now roughly a third of the
U.S. population, will be the majority.
• The Hispanic population will almost
triple; nearly one in three U.S.
residents will be Hispanic in 2050.
• The African American population is
projected to increase 1%, to 65.7
million (15% of the population).
• Americans of Asian descent are
projected to rise from 5.1% to 9.2%
of the population.
• American Indians and
Alaska Natives are
projected to rise from 4.9
million to 8.6 million (or
from 1.6% to 2% of the
total population).
• The number of people
who identify themselves as being of two or
more races will more than triple, from 5.2
million to 16.2 million.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2008
Minorities will
comprise more
than half of
all children by
2023.
Despite these challenges, here in North
Carolina we see our growing diversity as a
valuable opportunity. For more than a
decade we have been bringing the family-centered
approach to all we do, guided in
part by these principles of partnership:
• Everyone desires respect
• Everyone needs to be heard
• Everyone has strengths
• Judgments can wait
• Partners share power
• Partnership is a process
Child welfare practitioners across North
Carolina have discovered that although they
are not easy to apply, these principles have
the power to help us see the strengths and
potential solutions that lie in our diversity.
Although cultural and other differences can
pose challenges, more and more practitio-ners
now see the benefits that learning
about, accepting, and supporting diversity
can bring.
Of course, we still have a long way to
go. This issue of Practice Notes presents
information to help you as you seek to
improve outcomes for families and children
of all kinds. 􀂋􈬀
2
RECOGNIZING AND HONORING DIFFERENCES by Kay Kent, Buncombe County DSS
“When Dr. King said, ‘Not
everyone will cross over’ he
was not referring to religion,
but civil rights.”
This powerful and educa-tional
statement was shared
with me by one of my clients as a re-sult
of Buncombe County’s “Recog-nizing
and Honoring Differences”
PDSA developed for the Breakthrough
Series Collaborative (BSC). I have
been excited to be a part of our agen-cy’s
BSC since the onset, but I never
anticipated the impact it would have
on my social work practice in such a
short time.
After hearing a speakers from
Minnesota make a statement about
how important it is to simply
acknowledge differences, I thought,
“How could I have missed such a
simple concept during my 12 years in
social work?”
I realized that because I had worked
with so many families over the years,
I made the assumption that I under-stood
their differences. I had never
really asked about their specific opin-ions
or points of view that might be a
result of their race or culture. Instead,
I was just gathering information relat-ed
to risk and safety and
mandated demographics. I
immediately knew that ac-knowledging
and honoring
cultural differences would
be my first PDSA (Plan-Do-
Study-Act) as a CPS line worker.
I returned to my team and shared
my enthusiasm about this concept. We
worked out the logistics and put this
idea in the PDSA format. I developed
a script (see box on page 3) to use
with families of a different race or
culture in which I acknowledged that
we were different and made sure that
families had the opportunity to express
how they felt about having me as their
social worker.
Wow! Within the first week, the first
few responses I obtained were so rel-evant
and powerful I knew this PDSA
was a success. I also developed an
anonymous survey (with a postage
paid envelope) the family could use
to provide additional feedback. The
responses were not addressed to me,
to assure the family their responses
would not impact their case decision.
The opening statement of this arti-cle,
in which my client referenced Dr.
King, was given as a result of his ex-plaining
that he had
overcome having
problems or feeling
barriers with white
people. He stated
that because of Dr.
King and others fighting for civil rights,
he can now go to a magistrate and
explain his side of a charge without
fearing he would be immediately
judged or locked up. He has a right to
equal representation. He went on to
say that Dr. King was of the opinion
that people of color would be given
equal opportunities, but that not all
people of color would take advantage
of this. He stated he believes this is
the case, but he has seen change and
he had no problem that I was a white
social worker. His mother and son were
also present and gave their own per-spectives.
She talked about her youth
and the struggles she had growing up
in the South. Her grandson stated he
didn’t think there is a difference at all
in how people who are of a different
color are treated.
I engaged with another African
America woman that week on a dif-ferent
case who stated she was actu-ally
glad that I was white,
PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT CYCLES
The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a change planning
and implementation process used by Casey Family Pro-grams’
Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC). The PDSA
cycle is a great tool for testing and implementing changes
because it reflects System of Care values and our state’s
family-centered principles of partnership.
The PDSA method allows ideas to be tested in small in-crements,
where the consequences are minimized before a
change is rolled out to an entire agency, jurisdiction, or
system. In fact, teams are encouraged to try new ideas im-mediately,
without any planning effort. One of the mantras
in the BSC is “never plan more than you can do.”
Since small ideas are tested in rapid succession, less time
is spent on planning and more time is spent learning from
real practice in action (NRCFCPP, 2004). PDSA cycles have
cont. p. 3
Simply and
respectfully
acknowledging
differences
opens doors.
been used in
Buncombe, Catawba,
and other North
Carolina counties.
To learn how to
use the PDSA method
to improve your work
with families or to
learn more about the
BSC, go to <http://
www.casey.org/Re-sources/
Projects/BSC/>. You can also learn more about
the PDSA cycles by reading The Improvement Guide: A Prac-tical
Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance
by Langley et al. (1996, Jossey-Bass).
3
as it had been her experience in the
past that people of her own race that
were in higher, authoritative positions
often judged her and criticized her for
living in public housing and getting as-sistance.
But even more surprising, she
stated that her father is white. How
many times had I assumed I knew a
client��s race or ethnicity, or simply
relied on the information the last so-cial
worker had provided in the case
file? Later, a woman from El Salva-dor
described her background as a
child living with a large extended fam-ily,
her childhood experiences and the
lack of opportunity for education, and
specific to the case, the disciplinary
practices used in her home.
I continue to learn daily about the
families with whom I work. I have ex-panded
the script to acknowledge any
differences such as religion, tradition,
or heritage that, had I not asked, I
would have never known existed. I am
seeing that even families of my same
race have differences that affect their
point of view. When I engage with fam-ilies
using the script, I can literally feel
barriers melt and doors of communi-cation
open. Families are empowered
by the fact that I care enough to ask
and truly want to understand them
better.
Let me repeat: how could I have
missed this simple concept for so long?
I have begun to share my experienc-es
and successes with others. I hope
everyone who reads this article will
consider implementing this script as
part of their toolkit for engaging fam-ilies.
In only two months, I have learned
so much. I cannot fathom the positive
effects this PDSA will have over the
remainder of my career. 􀂋􈭓
STRENGTHENING SUPERVISION
Tips for Helping Caseworkers Navigate Cultural Differences
Adapted from CASCW, 2009
continued from page 2
• Remind child welfare workers that culture is more than
just race: religion, geography, socioeconomic status and
many other factors shape who we are. Even someone
who looks like us may have a very different culture.
• Encourage workers to allow parents to provide the nar-rative
of their life: their ethnic roots, social class, lan-guage
of choice, household composition (use a geno-gram
to capture), and social and community supports.
• Encourage staff to explore with parents their family
values: how children should behave; the relationship
of children to parents and grandparents.
• Discuss with each worker the way culture shapes fam-ily
strategies for coping with challenges; workers must
understand the cultural tradition for responding to a
child’s risk-taking behavior.
• Explore the meaning of sparse verbal interactions both
as a parent communication style
and as a cultural response to a
non-family member.
• Emphasize the value of empa-thy:
reinforce listening skills.
• With the worker, discuss how the
power inherent in child protection is interpreted by the
parents. Is it seen as a threat to their safety as refugees
or to their employment? What impact will it have on
the respect they are due within the family circle?
• Consider involving a “cultural liaison” or “family ad-vocate”
from the ethnic community to share the con-tent
of the intervention; consider the uses and role of
interpreters.
Adapted from Connolly, M., Crichton-Hill, Y., & Ward, T. (2008).
Families, culture & supervision. Social Work Now.
SOCIAL WORKER/CLIENT NARRATIVE
In engaging with clientele of different cultural/ethnic/racial backgrounds, the
social worker (line worker) will engage in the following conversations during
initiation of CPS assessments:
1. Inquire about and acknowledge any cultural/ethnic/racial differences and,
if applicable, ask family members if they are comfortable with social
worker managing their case if there is a difference.
2. Ask the family if there is anything about their cultural/ethnic/racial
background which family feels SW needs to know.
3. Ask the family if there is anything in general they would like to know
about SW’s culture to better understand SW’s viewpoint.
4. Advise the family that SW does not want to assume he or she understands
the family if they are of different background.
5. Share with all families that SW/agency is trying to better acknowledge
and understand cultural/ethnic/racial differences.
4
RACE AND CHILD WELFARE
BUILDING CULTURAL SENSITIVITY: DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT KINSHIP CARE
COMMON MYTH THE REALITY
Race can be challenging to discuss. Many people have
strong feelings about the history of race relations. Others
are reluctant to share opinions or questions for fear of
appearing culturally insensitive. In addition, the interac-tion
of race, culture, and child welfare services is com-plex
and hard to untangle.
Yet the fact is that minority children have very different
experiences in the child welfare system than white chil-dren.
Understanding the trends and factors contributing to
racial disparity and disproportionality can help practitio-ners
and agencies develop strategies to improve outcomes
for all children.
THE NUMBERS
For much of our history, non-white children were exclud-ed
by many organizations that served children in need. It
was not until the 1950s and 1960s that the civil rights
movement and national migration patterns led to the steady
increase in minority children’s presence in historically white
child welfare institutions (Hill, 2006).
As the proportion of minority children involved in child
welfare increased, it became clear that children of differ-ent
races were receiving disparate treatment. We now
have a wealth of research documenting some of the ways
in which minority children and families tend to fare worse
than their white counterparts. For example:
• Many studies found black families are more likely than
whites to be substantiated for maltreatment, even after
controlling for other factors (studies cited in Hill, 2006).
• African-American children were more than twice as like-ly
as white children to enter care in 2004 (GAO, 2007).
• African-American children remain in care, on aver-age,
9 months longer than white children (GAO, 2007).
• African-American and Hispanic children are twice as
likely as white children to be in kinship care, but kin-ship
care providers receive fewer services and bene-fits
and less financial assistance (Hill, 2006).
• Several studies suggest black and Hispanic foster chil-dren
received fewer or poorer quality mental health
services than white children—even after controlling for
factors such as need, income, insurance status, mal-treatment
type, and severity of mental health prob-lem)
(studies cited in Hill, 2006).
Of course, data is only part of the story. To ensure high
quality and equitable services for all children, we have to
understand the possible causes of racial disparity. We have
to uncover the story behind the numbers. Consider whether
any of the proposed causes outlined in the box on page 5
ring true for your community or agency.
MAKING PROGRESS IN NC
North Carolina has already adopted a number of promis-ing
practices thought to play an important part in address-ing
racial disparities (AECF, n.d.; Hill, 2007), such as:
1. Use of Child and Family Team meetings to increase
family participation and informal supports in decision
making.
2. Use of structured decision making tools to minimize
potential bias.
3. Implementation of cultural competency training for all
child welfare staff.
4. Increased attention and resources for front-loading
individualized, preventive services, as done under the
Multiple Response System.
5. Increased efforts to find relatives and natural supports,
including paternal relatives and “fictive kin.”
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree:
children are likely to experience the same
maltreatment with relatives.
Extended family networks have served as a protective factor in mediating child abuse
and neglect among black families (Hill, 2006).
Kin caregivers only do it for the money. Many kinship caregivers survive on TANF payments and receive less financial support
than non-related foster care providers (Hill, 2007).
Kin are too old/too poor to care for children. Kinship caregivers do tend to be older and poorer than non-kin (Ehrle, Green, & Main,
2003). However, “a vast majority of children feel loved by their kin caregivers and
happy with their living arrangement” (Shearin, 2007, pg. 35).
Kin care is not as stable as adoption. Children placed with non-relatives are three times more likely to be moved to different
homes than children in kinship care (Green, 2003). Children in kinship homes are also
less likely to reenter care after they’ve gone home or been adopted (Hurley, 2008).
Kin placements are not as safe. Children in kinship care are three to four times less likely to be maltreated than
children in traditional foster homes (Hurley, 2008).
Adapted from Hill, 2007; Cohen, 2008
cont. p. 5
5
6. Collaboration with community partners, as done in North
Carolina’s System of Care model, to pool resources and
share information about available services.
In addition, a number of North Carolina counties, including
Guilford and Wake, have used the Annie E. Casey Founda-tion’s
“Race Matters” Toolkit to assess and address dispro-portionality.
We still aren’t where we need to be on the issue of racial
disproportionality, but North Carolina has made progress.
The percentage of African American children in care has
decreased steadily from 50.3% in April 2000 to 40.6% in
April 2009. During the same time period, the percentage
of Native American children in care decreased from 2.2 to
1.4% (Duncan, et al., 2009).
WHAT ABOUT ME?
For this trend to continue, we must all take responsibility for
examining our own practice as well as local and state poli-cies
and procedures. A few areas to consider:
What gets measured gets done. With all of the demands
and stresses of child welfare practice, it is easy to let racial
disparity fall off our radar. Yet we know that agencies make
changes in the areas where they focus their attention. Track
your agency’s data to see where things stood yesterday,
where you are today, and where you end up tomorrow.
Cultivate an attitude of “cultural humility.” Every person
has a story to tell about how their family, culture, and com-munity
shaped who they are and how they view the world.
Let families be your teacher: don’t be afraid to ask ques-tions
and demonstrate your interest in their background and
values. Nothing helps us recognize our own preconceived
notions more than realizing how they compare to someone
else���s. Simply remaining aware of our own culture (howev-er
we define it) and our own judgments of others can im-prove
our interactions and decision-making.
Think broadly. Culture is about more than just race: reli-gion,
geography, socioeconomic status, and many other
factors shape who we are. Even someone who looks like us
may have grown up in a very different culture.
Spread the word. Mandated reporters, court personnel,
foster parents—many of those who interact with child wel-fare
may not realize the prevalence of racial disparity. Seek
opportunities to provide training and discuss the impact of
race and cultural competency.
Child welfare professionals are passionate about improv-ing
the lives of children and families, regardless of their eth-nicity
or background. To make progress towards equitable
outcomes for all children, practitioners can remain informed
about trends and contributing factors and stay open to recog-nizing
the influential role of culture in all of our lives. 􀂋􈭐
POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DISPARATE TREATMENT
AND DISPROPORTIONALITY
Reporter Bias. Medical providers are one of the top three
sources for CPS reports (GAO, 2007), and research suggests
racial bias may play a role in their reporting patterns. For ex-ample,
numerous studies have shown that hospitals report fam-ilies
of color more for child abuse and neglect, even when they
have similar presenting problems (studies cited in Hill, 2006).
One study found that women of color are more likely to be
reported than white women for newborns who test positive for
drugs (Chasnoff, Landress, & Barrett, 1990).
The Impact of Poverty. Nationally, African Americans are
nearly four times more likely than others to live in poverty (GAO,
2007). This means that African Americans are also more likely
to come in contact with mandated reporters who are among the
most common sources of reports: law enforcement and social
service agencies (GAO, 2007). It is conversely more likely that
middle- and upper-class families avoid notice of public agen-cies,
or have the financial resources to resolve issues outside of
the child welfare system.
A number of poverty-related factors have also been linked
by research to child maltreatment, such as depression, isola-tion,
teenage pregnancy, unemployment, substance abuse, and
domestic violence (Hill, 2006). Low income families also have
less access to important supports and services, such as afford-able
housing, substance abuse treatment, family support servic-es,
and legal representation for birth parents (GAO, 2007).
Kinship Care and Length of Stay. Research has shown
that children in kinship placements tend to stay in care longer
than children placed with nonrelatives (studies cited in Hill,
2006). Since minority children are more likely to be placed with
kin, they are more likely to experience this effect. One often
cited reason for this difference is that relative caretakers may
be reluctant to pursue termination of parental rights of family
members in order to pursue adoption. To address this concern,
federal and state policy now allows for alternative permanency
goals for children, including legal permanent guardianship and
Alternative Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA),
both of which provide a permanent home outside of foster care
without terminating parental rights.
Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstand-ing
within Child Welfare. Many child welfare officials and
researchers have suggested that families’ distrust of the child
welfare system contributes to disproportionality. In particular,
African Americans in some poor communities may consider child
welfare agencies as more interested in separating children from
parents than in helping families (GAO, 2007). As a result, fam-ilies
may not seek or cooperate with services, which can then
increase the risk of a child’s removal.
In addition to possible bias by reporters, there may also be
bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of child welfare
caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges (GAO, 2007).
Those on the front lines may make unrecognized assumptions
about someone from a different class, race, or ethnic group—
and those assumptions can lead to more intensive and disrup-tive
interventions in families’ lives.
continued from page 4
6
ENHANCING CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE WITH AMERICAN INDIANS
To help child welfare professionals guard against the
mistakes of the past and prepare for successful partnerships
with American Indian families, this article provides a brief
overview of events that have impacted Native families and
offers suggestions for strengthening their practice with
American Indian families by fully implementing the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978.
A BRIEF HISTORY
Before 1871, the U.S. government used warfare and oth-er
means to try to eliminate American Indians. Tribes that
survived this policy of extermination were removed from
their lands and forced onto reservations (Halverson, et
al., 2002).
Boarding Schools. After 1871 the government policy
toward Indians changed to one of assimilation (Halverson,
et al., 2002). As part of this policy, from the 1870s through
the 1930s many Indian children were taken from their
families and raised in boarding schools—harsh, rigid in-stitutions,
the primary purpose of which was to “civilize”
Indians and eradicate all traces of Native culture.
The boarding schools had a devastating effect on Indi-an
families, in part because they prevented the passing
on of traditions and knowledge about how to raise chil-dren
and be a family. In addition, the schools introduced
new and dysfunctional behaviors (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
“Many of the boarding school survivors returned to their
tribes/nations and were unable to pick up the thread of
family life, inadvertently continuing the legacy of abuse they
themselves experienced away from home” (Fox, 2004).
Although the boarding school era ended around 1940,
their influence continues to be felt by Indian families and
children today (Kalambakal, 2001; Andrzejek, 2004).
Adoption and Foster Care. In the years after 1940
the push to assimilate American Indians continued. Adop-tions
and child welfare interventions were a significant
part of this effort. From the 1950s to the 1970s many
private organizations tried to “save” Indian children by
removing them from their homes and placing them for
adoption in non-Native homes (Goldsmith, 2002).
At the same time, Indian children were placed in foster
care at disproportionately high rates: a 1969 survey con-ducted
in 16 states with large Indian populations found
that between 25% to 35% of all Native children were
removed from their families and placed in foster or adop-tive
homes. In some states Native children were 13 times
more likely to be removed from their homes than non-
Native children (Goldsmith, 2002; CWLA, 2005). The
majority were placed in non-Native foster homes.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978
Statistics such as these, as well as ten years of hearings,
led Congress to pass the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA). Congress’ purpose in passing this law was to pro-tect
the best interests of Indian children and to promote
the stability and security of Indian tribes and families (25
U.S.C. § 1902).
ICWA establishes a minimum federal standard for state
removal of children from their homes and guidelines for
placement in foster or adoptive homes. To meet this stan-dard,
states must demonstrate active efforts have been
made to prevent the breakup of the family. If these efforts
are unsuccessful, out-of-home placement is possible if a
court finds the child is at risk of serious emotional or phys-ical
harm.
When placement is necessary, ICWA provides a pref-erence
system to keep Indian children in an Indian family
whenever possible. Applicable to both foster and adoptive
homes, this preference system seeks to preserve Ameri-can
Indian communities and culture and respect tribal sov-ereignty
(Wilkins, 2004).
TIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING ICWA
Although it’s been more than 30 years since the passage
of ICWA, some child welfare agencies continue to strug-gle
to consistently apply this important law. Following are
key suggestions for enhancing ICWA implementation in
your practice and in your child welfare agency:
1. Identify. To comply with ICWA child welfare work-ers
should inquire whether children/parents are Ameri-can
Indian with every family and at every stage of each
family’s case. ICWA applies only to Indian children who
are either (1) members of a federally-recognized tribe
OR (2) eligible for membership in a federally-recognized
IDENTIFYING INDIAN HERITAGE
• Ask the family, including the child, if they
are aware of any tribal affiliation.
• Find out if a parent or grandparent has a
tribal enrollment card.
• Develop a family tree indicating the mother’s and
grandmother’s maiden names and the names of the
father and paternal grandparents.
• Contact the appropriate tribe. For a list of federally-recognized
tribes go to <http://www.doi.gov/bia/
ia_tribal_directory.html>. For contact information for
tribes recognized by the state of North Carolina go to
<http://www.doa.state.nc.us/cia/tribesorg.htm>.
Source: NYOCFS, 2006
Photo Illustration
7
tribe AND are the biological children of members of that
tribe. For a list of federally-recognized tribes go to <http:/
/www.doi.gov/bia/ia_tribal_directory.html>.
2. Notify. If it learns a child is American Indian, a child
welfare agency must immediately contact the child’s tribe
to determine whether the child is an Indian child as de-fined
by ICWA (see above). Once tribal affiliation is de-termined,
the child welfare agency must provide written
notice of any impending placement proceedings to the
child’s parents, Indian custodian, and tribe. ICWA spells
out what information must be contained in that notice, which
must be sent to the tribe via registered mail, return receipt
requested. It is best to phone the tribal contact person and
let that person know that you are sending the required
registered letter. It is also advisable to make a follow-up
phone call a few days after the letter is mailed out.
3. Partner. A cornerstone of strong ICWA practice is
active and early participation and consultation with the
child’s tribe in the development and review of the service
plan (NICWA, 2009; NYOCFS, 2006).
4. Follow Placement Preferences. In the absence of
good cause to the contrary, child welfare agencies are
required to place the child according to the following or-der
of preferences established by ICWA. Foster care place-ment
preferences: (1) with extended family (third-degree
blood ties—first or second cousins, aunts, uncles, grand-parents,
or stepparents); (2) with Indian foster parents ap-proved
by the tribe or with an Indian foster home licensed
by the state; or (3) in residential care approved by the
tribe. Adoptive placement preferences: (1) extended family,
(2) non-related members of the same tribe, (3) other In-dian
families. These preferences apply even if the tribe
elects not to intervene.
Tribes may alter the order of preference for its chil-dren,
and the child welfare agency must follow this new
order. Also, consideration may be given to a parent’s or a
child’s wishes with regard to placement. (Note: these pref-erences
are possible because another federal law, the
Multiethnic Placement Act, has no effect on ICWA; thus an
Indian child may be moved from a non-Indian foster home
to comply with these preferences without violating MEPA.)
If an Indian child’s foster care placement disrupts, com-pliance
with ICWA must continue: the agency must send
notification via registered mail to the tribe, which has an-other
opportunity to intervene or indicate preferences.
5. Make “Active Efforts.” Under ICWA, child welfare
agencies must use “active efforts,” providing remedial
services to prevent the breakup of the Native American
family. Active efforts are more intensive than "reasonable
efforts"—for example, whereas reasonable efforts might
be a referral for services, active efforts would be arrang-ing
for the best-fitting services and actively helping fami-lies
engage in those services (NICWA, 2009).
ICWA LEARNING RESOURCES
There is more to know about ICWA. For additional learn-ing
resources, including online courses, see vol. 7, no. 2
of Training Matters <www.trainingmatters-nc.org>. 􀂋􈭣
continued from page 6
WORKING WITH STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBES
North Carolina is home to eight
American Indian tribes. All are rec-ognized
by our state but only one,
the Eastern Band of the Chero-kee,
is federally recognized.
Although ICWA does not ap-ply
to children and families from
state-recognized tribes, current
state law and policy encourage partnership between
child welfare agencies and state-recognized tribes. State
tribes can be utilized as community partners in working
with the child and family—for example, as participants
in Child and Family Team meetings and as potential
sources of support to help the family stay together or
reunify. A 2001 North Carolina law (NCGS §143B-
139.5A) directs child welfare agencies to give special
consideration to state-recognized tribes. Thanks to this
law, when they first come into contact with a child, agen-cies
can consider the child’s Indian heritage in access-ing
services and making the initial placement.
However, because federal law trumps state law, MEPA
and other relevant federal laws do apply to children
from non-federally-recognized tribes. Therefore, after
the initial placement of a child from a tribe that is not
federally recognized, the child’s race or ethnicity may
not be considered in changing their placement. Simi-larly,
because of confidentiality laws, child welfare agen-cies
cannot automatically notify state-recognized tribes
every time an Indian child is involved with the agency.
Members of the General Assembly, the NC Division
of Social Services, the NC Commission of Indian Af-fairs,
representatives from state-recognized tribes, and
other stakeholders are currently working to clarify and
improve this situation. In the meantime, child welfare
agencies should continue to seize every opportunity to
partner with state-recognized tribes and to engage all
American Indians using respectful, family-centered child
welfare practice.
Children’s Services Practice Notes
Family & Children’s Resource Program
Jordan Institute for Families
UNC–School of Social Work
Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
State Courier # 17-61-04
RESOURCES FOR LEARNING MORE ABOUT WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
Reprinted from the Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008
PLEASE NOTE
PRACTICE NOTES TO DISCONTINUE
PRINT PUBLICATION
Future issues of Children’s Services Practice Notes will be
available only online at www.practicenotes.org. If you
would like to receive notification via e-mail when new issues
appear, send an e-mail with “subscribe CSPN” in the
subject line to jdmcmaho@email.unc.edu.
Race Matters Toolkit
ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION
Designed to help advocates mobilize resources for vulnera-ble
populations of color in order to reduce racial disparities/
disproportionality and promote racial equity.
<www. k i d s c o u n t . o r g / k c n e t w o r k / r e s o u r c e s /
RaceMattersToolkit.htm>
Culturally Competent Practice With Latino Families
GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES (2007)
Provides participants with an introduction to the basic con-cepts
of culturally competent practice and specific skills and
knowledge for culturally competent practice with Latino fam-ilies.
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/392dyj>
Racial Disparity in the Child Welfare System
URBAN INSTITUTE (2008)
Panelists in this audio presentation consider how child wel-fare
system administrators are leading initiatives to address
racial disparity. <http://www.urban.org/Pressroom/thursday-schild/
january2008.cfm>
Introduction to Cultural Competence: A Training
Tool
FRIENDS NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD
ABUSE PREVENTION
Explains strategies for assessing cultural competency and
improving the ethnic and linguistic responsiveness of family
support programs.
<www.friendsnrc.org/resources/culture.htm>
Culturally Competent Strategies for Strengthening
Families
FRIENDS NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD
ABUSE PREVENTION (2006)
Offers links to audio files and materials from a teleconference
that featured presentations on culturally competent practice
within the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention program.
<www.friendsnrc.org/resources/teleconference.htm#cc>
Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare in the
Context of Cultural Competence
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK (2008)
Offers six online training modules addressing issues related
to cultural competence, child welfare, and evidence-based
practice. <http://cehd.umn.edu/ssw/G-S/EBP-CC_Modules/
index.html>
Knowing Who You Are: Video
CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
Presents the perspectives of youth in care, child welfare pro-fessionals,
and foster parents about why race and ethnicity
matter and the importance of integrating racial and ethnic
identity into child welfare practice. <www.casey.org/Resourc-es/
Projects/REI/KnowingWhoYouAreVideo.htm>

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Volume 14, Number 3
June 2009
This publication for child
welfare professionals is pro-duced
by the North Carolina
Division of Social Services and
the Family and Children’s Re-source
Program, part of the
Jordan Institute for Families
within the School of Social
Work at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In summarizing research, we try
to give you new ideas for refin-ing
your practice. However, this
publication is not intended to
replace child welfare training,
regular supervision, or peer
consultation—only to enhance
them.
Let us hear from you!
To comment about something
that appears in Practice Notes,
please contact:
John McMahon
Jordan Institute for Families
School of Social Work
UNC–Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
jdmcmaho@email.unc.edu
Newsletter Staff
Mellicent Blythe
Lane Cooke
John McMahon
Visit Our Website
www.practicenotes.org
References for the articles in
this issue can be found at
CHILD WELFARE’S RESPONSE TO DIVERSITY
Rising diversity might be seen by some as
unwelcome news for the child welfare sys-tem,
since it is clear we are already strug-gling
with this issue. For example, we are
trying to understand and respond to the phe-nomenon
of disproportionality, which oc-curs
when children from some groups (e.g.,
African Americans, American Indians) are
represented in the child welfare system in
greater numbers than they are in the gen-eral
population (Hill, 2006). Data suggest
disproportionality is decreasing in North
Carolina, but it is still a significant concern
(Duncan, et al., 2009).
Another indicator that the child welfare
system is struggling with diversity is the ex-istence
of racial disparity in service provi-sion—
the fact that families and children from
some minority groups receive inferior treat-ment.
For example, although when class and
other risk factors are controlled for African
Americans have lower rates of abuse and
neglect than whites (Sedlak & Schultz,
2005), African American children are far
more likely to be substantiated for maltreat-ment
and removed from their homes than
white children (CDF, 2006; Derezotes &
Poertner, 2001).
THE US CENSUS BUREAU PREDICTS THAT BY 2050 . . .
• Minorities, now roughly a third of the
U.S. population, will be the majority.
• The Hispanic population will almost
triple; nearly one in three U.S.
residents will be Hispanic in 2050.
• The African American population is
projected to increase 1%, to 65.7
million (15% of the population).
• Americans of Asian descent are
projected to rise from 5.1% to 9.2%
of the population.
• American Indians and
Alaska Natives are
projected to rise from 4.9
million to 8.6 million (or
from 1.6% to 2% of the
total population).
• The number of people
who identify themselves as being of two or
more races will more than triple, from 5.2
million to 16.2 million.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2008
Minorities will
comprise more
than half of
all children by
2023.
Despite these challenges, here in North
Carolina we see our growing diversity as a
valuable opportunity. For more than a
decade we have been bringing the family-centered
approach to all we do, guided in
part by these principles of partnership:
• Everyone desires respect
• Everyone needs to be heard
• Everyone has strengths
• Judgments can wait
• Partners share power
• Partnership is a process
Child welfare practitioners across North
Carolina have discovered that although they
are not easy to apply, these principles have
the power to help us see the strengths and
potential solutions that lie in our diversity.
Although cultural and other differences can
pose challenges, more and more practitio-ners
now see the benefits that learning
about, accepting, and supporting diversity
can bring.
Of course, we still have a long way to
go. This issue of Practice Notes presents
information to help you as you seek to
improve outcomes for families and children
of all kinds. 􀂋􈬀
2
RECOGNIZING AND HONORING DIFFERENCES by Kay Kent, Buncombe County DSS
“When Dr. King said, ‘Not
everyone will cross over’ he
was not referring to religion,
but civil rights.”
This powerful and educa-tional
statement was shared
with me by one of my clients as a re-sult
of Buncombe County’s “Recog-nizing
and Honoring Differences”
PDSA developed for the Breakthrough
Series Collaborative (BSC). I have
been excited to be a part of our agen-cy’s
BSC since the onset, but I never
anticipated the impact it would have
on my social work practice in such a
short time.
After hearing a speakers from
Minnesota make a statement about
how important it is to simply
acknowledge differences, I thought,
“How could I have missed such a
simple concept during my 12 years in
social work?”
I realized that because I had worked
with so many families over the years,
I made the assumption that I under-stood
their differences. I had never
really asked about their specific opin-ions
or points of view that might be a
result of their race or culture. Instead,
I was just gathering information relat-ed
to risk and safety and
mandated demographics. I
immediately knew that ac-knowledging
and honoring
cultural differences would
be my first PDSA (Plan-Do-
Study-Act) as a CPS line worker.
I returned to my team and shared
my enthusiasm about this concept. We
worked out the logistics and put this
idea in the PDSA format. I developed
a script (see box on page 3) to use
with families of a different race or
culture in which I acknowledged that
we were different and made sure that
families had the opportunity to express
how they felt about having me as their
social worker.
Wow! Within the first week, the first
few responses I obtained were so rel-evant
and powerful I knew this PDSA
was a success. I also developed an
anonymous survey (with a postage
paid envelope) the family could use
to provide additional feedback. The
responses were not addressed to me,
to assure the family their responses
would not impact their case decision.
The opening statement of this arti-cle,
in which my client referenced Dr.
King, was given as a result of his ex-plaining
that he had
overcome having
problems or feeling
barriers with white
people. He stated
that because of Dr.
King and others fighting for civil rights,
he can now go to a magistrate and
explain his side of a charge without
fearing he would be immediately
judged or locked up. He has a right to
equal representation. He went on to
say that Dr. King was of the opinion
that people of color would be given
equal opportunities, but that not all
people of color would take advantage
of this. He stated he believes this is
the case, but he has seen change and
he had no problem that I was a white
social worker. His mother and son were
also present and gave their own per-spectives.
She talked about her youth
and the struggles she had growing up
in the South. Her grandson stated he
didn’t think there is a difference at all
in how people who are of a different
color are treated.
I engaged with another African
America woman that week on a dif-ferent
case who stated she was actu-ally
glad that I was white,
PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT CYCLES
The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a change planning
and implementation process used by Casey Family Pro-grams’
Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC). The PDSA
cycle is a great tool for testing and implementing changes
because it reflects System of Care values and our state’s
family-centered principles of partnership.
The PDSA method allows ideas to be tested in small in-crements,
where the consequences are minimized before a
change is rolled out to an entire agency, jurisdiction, or
system. In fact, teams are encouraged to try new ideas im-mediately,
without any planning effort. One of the mantras
in the BSC is “never plan more than you can do.”
Since small ideas are tested in rapid succession, less time
is spent on planning and more time is spent learning from
real practice in action (NRCFCPP, 2004). PDSA cycles have
cont. p. 3
Simply and
respectfully
acknowledging
differences
opens doors.
been used in
Buncombe, Catawba,
and other North
Carolina counties.
To learn how to
use the PDSA method
to improve your work
with families or to
learn more about the
BSC, go to . You can also learn more about
the PDSA cycles by reading The Improvement Guide: A Prac-tical
Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance
by Langley et al. (1996, Jossey-Bass).
3
as it had been her experience in the
past that people of her own race that
were in higher, authoritative positions
often judged her and criticized her for
living in public housing and getting as-sistance.
But even more surprising, she
stated that her father is white. How
many times had I assumed I knew a
client��s race or ethnicity, or simply
relied on the information the last so-cial
worker had provided in the case
file? Later, a woman from El Salva-dor
described her background as a
child living with a large extended fam-ily,
her childhood experiences and the
lack of opportunity for education, and
specific to the case, the disciplinary
practices used in her home.
I continue to learn daily about the
families with whom I work. I have ex-panded
the script to acknowledge any
differences such as religion, tradition,
or heritage that, had I not asked, I
would have never known existed. I am
seeing that even families of my same
race have differences that affect their
point of view. When I engage with fam-ilies
using the script, I can literally feel
barriers melt and doors of communi-cation
open. Families are empowered
by the fact that I care enough to ask
and truly want to understand them
better.
Let me repeat: how could I have
missed this simple concept for so long?
I have begun to share my experienc-es
and successes with others. I hope
everyone who reads this article will
consider implementing this script as
part of their toolkit for engaging fam-ilies.
In only two months, I have learned
so much. I cannot fathom the positive
effects this PDSA will have over the
remainder of my career. 􀂋􈭓
STRENGTHENING SUPERVISION
Tips for Helping Caseworkers Navigate Cultural Differences
Adapted from CASCW, 2009
continued from page 2
• Remind child welfare workers that culture is more than
just race: religion, geography, socioeconomic status and
many other factors shape who we are. Even someone
who looks like us may have a very different culture.
• Encourage workers to allow parents to provide the nar-rative
of their life: their ethnic roots, social class, lan-guage
of choice, household composition (use a geno-gram
to capture), and social and community supports.
• Encourage staff to explore with parents their family
values: how children should behave; the relationship
of children to parents and grandparents.
• Discuss with each worker the way culture shapes fam-ily
strategies for coping with challenges; workers must
understand the cultural tradition for responding to a
child’s risk-taking behavior.
• Explore the meaning of sparse verbal interactions both
as a parent communication style
and as a cultural response to a
non-family member.
• Emphasize the value of empa-thy:
reinforce listening skills.
• With the worker, discuss how the
power inherent in child protection is interpreted by the
parents. Is it seen as a threat to their safety as refugees
or to their employment? What impact will it have on
the respect they are due within the family circle?
• Consider involving a “cultural liaison” or “family ad-vocate”
from the ethnic community to share the con-tent
of the intervention; consider the uses and role of
interpreters.
Adapted from Connolly, M., Crichton-Hill, Y., & Ward, T. (2008).
Families, culture & supervision. Social Work Now.
SOCIAL WORKER/CLIENT NARRATIVE
In engaging with clientele of different cultural/ethnic/racial backgrounds, the
social worker (line worker) will engage in the following conversations during
initiation of CPS assessments:
1. Inquire about and acknowledge any cultural/ethnic/racial differences and,
if applicable, ask family members if they are comfortable with social
worker managing their case if there is a difference.
2. Ask the family if there is anything about their cultural/ethnic/racial
background which family feels SW needs to know.
3. Ask the family if there is anything in general they would like to know
about SW’s culture to better understand SW’s viewpoint.
4. Advise the family that SW does not want to assume he or she understands
the family if they are of different background.
5. Share with all families that SW/agency is trying to better acknowledge
and understand cultural/ethnic/racial differences.
4
RACE AND CHILD WELFARE
BUILDING CULTURAL SENSITIVITY: DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT KINSHIP CARE
COMMON MYTH THE REALITY
Race can be challenging to discuss. Many people have
strong feelings about the history of race relations. Others
are reluctant to share opinions or questions for fear of
appearing culturally insensitive. In addition, the interac-tion
of race, culture, and child welfare services is com-plex
and hard to untangle.
Yet the fact is that minority children have very different
experiences in the child welfare system than white chil-dren.
Understanding the trends and factors contributing to
racial disparity and disproportionality can help practitio-ners
and agencies develop strategies to improve outcomes
for all children.
THE NUMBERS
For much of our history, non-white children were exclud-ed
by many organizations that served children in need. It
was not until the 1950s and 1960s that the civil rights
movement and national migration patterns led to the steady
increase in minority children’s presence in historically white
child welfare institutions (Hill, 2006).
As the proportion of minority children involved in child
welfare increased, it became clear that children of differ-ent
races were receiving disparate treatment. We now
have a wealth of research documenting some of the ways
in which minority children and families tend to fare worse
than their white counterparts. For example:
• Many studies found black families are more likely than
whites to be substantiated for maltreatment, even after
controlling for other factors (studies cited in Hill, 2006).
• African-American children were more than twice as like-ly
as white children to enter care in 2004 (GAO, 2007).
• African-American children remain in care, on aver-age,
9 months longer than white children (GAO, 2007).
• African-American and Hispanic children are twice as
likely as white children to be in kinship care, but kin-ship
care providers receive fewer services and bene-fits
and less financial assistance (Hill, 2006).
• Several studies suggest black and Hispanic foster chil-dren
received fewer or poorer quality mental health
services than white children—even after controlling for
factors such as need, income, insurance status, mal-treatment
type, and severity of mental health prob-lem)
(studies cited in Hill, 2006).
Of course, data is only part of the story. To ensure high
quality and equitable services for all children, we have to
understand the possible causes of racial disparity. We have
to uncover the story behind the numbers. Consider whether
any of the proposed causes outlined in the box on page 5
ring true for your community or agency.
MAKING PROGRESS IN NC
North Carolina has already adopted a number of promis-ing
practices thought to play an important part in address-ing
racial disparities (AECF, n.d.; Hill, 2007), such as:
1. Use of Child and Family Team meetings to increase
family participation and informal supports in decision
making.
2. Use of structured decision making tools to minimize
potential bias.
3. Implementation of cultural competency training for all
child welfare staff.
4. Increased attention and resources for front-loading
individualized, preventive services, as done under the
Multiple Response System.
5. Increased efforts to find relatives and natural supports,
including paternal relatives and “fictive kin.”
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree:
children are likely to experience the same
maltreatment with relatives.
Extended family networks have served as a protective factor in mediating child abuse
and neglect among black families (Hill, 2006).
Kin caregivers only do it for the money. Many kinship caregivers survive on TANF payments and receive less financial support
than non-related foster care providers (Hill, 2007).
Kin are too old/too poor to care for children. Kinship caregivers do tend to be older and poorer than non-kin (Ehrle, Green, & Main,
2003). However, “a vast majority of children feel loved by their kin caregivers and
happy with their living arrangement” (Shearin, 2007, pg. 35).
Kin care is not as stable as adoption. Children placed with non-relatives are three times more likely to be moved to different
homes than children in kinship care (Green, 2003). Children in kinship homes are also
less likely to reenter care after they’ve gone home or been adopted (Hurley, 2008).
Kin placements are not as safe. Children in kinship care are three to four times less likely to be maltreated than
children in traditional foster homes (Hurley, 2008).
Adapted from Hill, 2007; Cohen, 2008
cont. p. 5
5
6. Collaboration with community partners, as done in North
Carolina’s System of Care model, to pool resources and
share information about available services.
In addition, a number of North Carolina counties, including
Guilford and Wake, have used the Annie E. Casey Founda-tion’s
“Race Matters” Toolkit to assess and address dispro-portionality.
We still aren’t where we need to be on the issue of racial
disproportionality, but North Carolina has made progress.
The percentage of African American children in care has
decreased steadily from 50.3% in April 2000 to 40.6% in
April 2009. During the same time period, the percentage
of Native American children in care decreased from 2.2 to
1.4% (Duncan, et al., 2009).
WHAT ABOUT ME?
For this trend to continue, we must all take responsibility for
examining our own practice as well as local and state poli-cies
and procedures. A few areas to consider:
What gets measured gets done. With all of the demands
and stresses of child welfare practice, it is easy to let racial
disparity fall off our radar. Yet we know that agencies make
changes in the areas where they focus their attention. Track
your agency’s data to see where things stood yesterday,
where you are today, and where you end up tomorrow.
Cultivate an attitude of “cultural humility.” Every person
has a story to tell about how their family, culture, and com-munity
shaped who they are and how they view the world.
Let families be your teacher: don’t be afraid to ask ques-tions
and demonstrate your interest in their background and
values. Nothing helps us recognize our own preconceived
notions more than realizing how they compare to someone
else���s. Simply remaining aware of our own culture (howev-er
we define it) and our own judgments of others can im-prove
our interactions and decision-making.
Think broadly. Culture is about more than just race: reli-gion,
geography, socioeconomic status, and many other
factors shape who we are. Even someone who looks like us
may have grown up in a very different culture.
Spread the word. Mandated reporters, court personnel,
foster parents—many of those who interact with child wel-fare
may not realize the prevalence of racial disparity. Seek
opportunities to provide training and discuss the impact of
race and cultural competency.
Child welfare professionals are passionate about improv-ing
the lives of children and families, regardless of their eth-nicity
or background. To make progress towards equitable
outcomes for all children, practitioners can remain informed
about trends and contributing factors and stay open to recog-nizing
the influential role of culture in all of our lives. 􀂋􈭐
POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DISPARATE TREATMENT
AND DISPROPORTIONALITY
Reporter Bias. Medical providers are one of the top three
sources for CPS reports (GAO, 2007), and research suggests
racial bias may play a role in their reporting patterns. For ex-ample,
numerous studies have shown that hospitals report fam-ilies
of color more for child abuse and neglect, even when they
have similar presenting problems (studies cited in Hill, 2006).
One study found that women of color are more likely to be
reported than white women for newborns who test positive for
drugs (Chasnoff, Landress, & Barrett, 1990).
The Impact of Poverty. Nationally, African Americans are
nearly four times more likely than others to live in poverty (GAO,
2007). This means that African Americans are also more likely
to come in contact with mandated reporters who are among the
most common sources of reports: law enforcement and social
service agencies (GAO, 2007). It is conversely more likely that
middle- and upper-class families avoid notice of public agen-cies,
or have the financial resources to resolve issues outside of
the child welfare system.
A number of poverty-related factors have also been linked
by research to child maltreatment, such as depression, isola-tion,
teenage pregnancy, unemployment, substance abuse, and
domestic violence (Hill, 2006). Low income families also have
less access to important supports and services, such as afford-able
housing, substance abuse treatment, family support servic-es,
and legal representation for birth parents (GAO, 2007).
Kinship Care and Length of Stay. Research has shown
that children in kinship placements tend to stay in care longer
than children placed with nonrelatives (studies cited in Hill,
2006). Since minority children are more likely to be placed with
kin, they are more likely to experience this effect. One often
cited reason for this difference is that relative caretakers may
be reluctant to pursue termination of parental rights of family
members in order to pursue adoption. To address this concern,
federal and state policy now allows for alternative permanency
goals for children, including legal permanent guardianship and
Alternative Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA),
both of which provide a permanent home outside of foster care
without terminating parental rights.
Distrust and Racial Bias or Cultural Misunderstand-ing
within Child Welfare. Many child welfare officials and
researchers have suggested that families’ distrust of the child
welfare system contributes to disproportionality. In particular,
African Americans in some poor communities may consider child
welfare agencies as more interested in separating children from
parents than in helping families (GAO, 2007). As a result, fam-ilies
may not seek or cooperate with services, which can then
increase the risk of a child’s removal.
In addition to possible bias by reporters, there may also be
bias or cultural misunderstanding on the part of child welfare
caseworkers and juvenile and family court judges (GAO, 2007).
Those on the front lines may make unrecognized assumptions
about someone from a different class, race, or ethnic group—
and those assumptions can lead to more intensive and disrup-tive
interventions in families’ lives.
continued from page 4
6
ENHANCING CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE WITH AMERICAN INDIANS
To help child welfare professionals guard against the
mistakes of the past and prepare for successful partnerships
with American Indian families, this article provides a brief
overview of events that have impacted Native families and
offers suggestions for strengthening their practice with
American Indian families by fully implementing the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978.
A BRIEF HISTORY
Before 1871, the U.S. government used warfare and oth-er
means to try to eliminate American Indians. Tribes that
survived this policy of extermination were removed from
their lands and forced onto reservations (Halverson, et
al., 2002).
Boarding Schools. After 1871 the government policy
toward Indians changed to one of assimilation (Halverson,
et al., 2002). As part of this policy, from the 1870s through
the 1930s many Indian children were taken from their
families and raised in boarding schools—harsh, rigid in-stitutions,
the primary purpose of which was to “civilize”
Indians and eradicate all traces of Native culture.
The boarding schools had a devastating effect on Indi-an
families, in part because they prevented the passing
on of traditions and knowledge about how to raise chil-dren
and be a family. In addition, the schools introduced
new and dysfunctional behaviors (Horejsi, et al., 1992).
“Many of the boarding school survivors returned to their
tribes/nations and were unable to pick up the thread of
family life, inadvertently continuing the legacy of abuse they
themselves experienced away from home” (Fox, 2004).
Although the boarding school era ended around 1940,
their influence continues to be felt by Indian families and
children today (Kalambakal, 2001; Andrzejek, 2004).
Adoption and Foster Care. In the years after 1940
the push to assimilate American Indians continued. Adop-tions
and child welfare interventions were a significant
part of this effort. From the 1950s to the 1970s many
private organizations tried to “save” Indian children by
removing them from their homes and placing them for
adoption in non-Native homes (Goldsmith, 2002).
At the same time, Indian children were placed in foster
care at disproportionately high rates: a 1969 survey con-ducted
in 16 states with large Indian populations found
that between 25% to 35% of all Native children were
removed from their families and placed in foster or adop-tive
homes. In some states Native children were 13 times
more likely to be removed from their homes than non-
Native children (Goldsmith, 2002; CWLA, 2005). The
majority were placed in non-Native foster homes.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978
Statistics such as these, as well as ten years of hearings,
led Congress to pass the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA). Congress’ purpose in passing this law was to pro-tect
the best interests of Indian children and to promote
the stability and security of Indian tribes and families (25
U.S.C. § 1902).
ICWA establishes a minimum federal standard for state
removal of children from their homes and guidelines for
placement in foster or adoptive homes. To meet this stan-dard,
states must demonstrate active efforts have been
made to prevent the breakup of the family. If these efforts
are unsuccessful, out-of-home placement is possible if a
court finds the child is at risk of serious emotional or phys-ical
harm.
When placement is necessary, ICWA provides a pref-erence
system to keep Indian children in an Indian family
whenever possible. Applicable to both foster and adoptive
homes, this preference system seeks to preserve Ameri-can
Indian communities and culture and respect tribal sov-ereignty
(Wilkins, 2004).
TIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING ICWA
Although it’s been more than 30 years since the passage
of ICWA, some child welfare agencies continue to strug-gle
to consistently apply this important law. Following are
key suggestions for enhancing ICWA implementation in
your practice and in your child welfare agency:
1. Identify. To comply with ICWA child welfare work-ers
should inquire whether children/parents are Ameri-can
Indian with every family and at every stage of each
family’s case. ICWA applies only to Indian children who
are either (1) members of a federally-recognized tribe
OR (2) eligible for membership in a federally-recognized
IDENTIFYING INDIAN HERITAGE
• Ask the family, including the child, if they
are aware of any tribal affiliation.
• Find out if a parent or grandparent has a
tribal enrollment card.
• Develop a family tree indicating the mother’s and
grandmother’s maiden names and the names of the
father and paternal grandparents.
• Contact the appropriate tribe. For a list of federally-recognized
tribes go to . For contact information for
tribes recognized by the state of North Carolina go to
.
Source: NYOCFS, 2006
Photo Illustration
7
tribe AND are the biological children of members of that
tribe. For a list of federally-recognized tribes go to .
2. Notify. If it learns a child is American Indian, a child
welfare agency must immediately contact the child’s tribe
to determine whether the child is an Indian child as de-fined
by ICWA (see above). Once tribal affiliation is de-termined,
the child welfare agency must provide written
notice of any impending placement proceedings to the
child’s parents, Indian custodian, and tribe. ICWA spells
out what information must be contained in that notice, which
must be sent to the tribe via registered mail, return receipt
requested. It is best to phone the tribal contact person and
let that person know that you are sending the required
registered letter. It is also advisable to make a follow-up
phone call a few days after the letter is mailed out.
3. Partner. A cornerstone of strong ICWA practice is
active and early participation and consultation with the
child’s tribe in the development and review of the service
plan (NICWA, 2009; NYOCFS, 2006).
4. Follow Placement Preferences. In the absence of
good cause to the contrary, child welfare agencies are
required to place the child according to the following or-der
of preferences established by ICWA. Foster care place-ment
preferences: (1) with extended family (third-degree
blood ties—first or second cousins, aunts, uncles, grand-parents,
or stepparents); (2) with Indian foster parents ap-proved
by the tribe or with an Indian foster home licensed
by the state; or (3) in residential care approved by the
tribe. Adoptive placement preferences: (1) extended family,
(2) non-related members of the same tribe, (3) other In-dian
families. These preferences apply even if the tribe
elects not to intervene.
Tribes may alter the order of preference for its chil-dren,
and the child welfare agency must follow this new
order. Also, consideration may be given to a parent’s or a
child’s wishes with regard to placement. (Note: these pref-erences
are possible because another federal law, the
Multiethnic Placement Act, has no effect on ICWA; thus an
Indian child may be moved from a non-Indian foster home
to comply with these preferences without violating MEPA.)
If an Indian child’s foster care placement disrupts, com-pliance
with ICWA must continue: the agency must send
notification via registered mail to the tribe, which has an-other
opportunity to intervene or indicate preferences.
5. Make “Active Efforts.” Under ICWA, child welfare
agencies must use “active efforts,” providing remedial
services to prevent the breakup of the Native American
family. Active efforts are more intensive than "reasonable
efforts"—for example, whereas reasonable efforts might
be a referral for services, active efforts would be arrang-ing
for the best-fitting services and actively helping fami-lies
engage in those services (NICWA, 2009).
ICWA LEARNING RESOURCES
There is more to know about ICWA. For additional learn-ing
resources, including online courses, see vol. 7, no. 2
of Training Matters . 􀂋􈭣
continued from page 6
WORKING WITH STATE-RECOGNIZED TRIBES
North Carolina is home to eight
American Indian tribes. All are rec-ognized
by our state but only one,
the Eastern Band of the Chero-kee,
is federally recognized.
Although ICWA does not ap-ply
to children and families from
state-recognized tribes, current
state law and policy encourage partnership between
child welfare agencies and state-recognized tribes. State
tribes can be utilized as community partners in working
with the child and family—for example, as participants
in Child and Family Team meetings and as potential
sources of support to help the family stay together or
reunify. A 2001 North Carolina law (NCGS §143B-
139.5A) directs child welfare agencies to give special
consideration to state-recognized tribes. Thanks to this
law, when they first come into contact with a child, agen-cies
can consider the child’s Indian heritage in access-ing
services and making the initial placement.
However, because federal law trumps state law, MEPA
and other relevant federal laws do apply to children
from non-federally-recognized tribes. Therefore, after
the initial placement of a child from a tribe that is not
federally recognized, the child’s race or ethnicity may
not be considered in changing their placement. Simi-larly,
because of confidentiality laws, child welfare agen-cies
cannot automatically notify state-recognized tribes
every time an Indian child is involved with the agency.
Members of the General Assembly, the NC Division
of Social Services, the NC Commission of Indian Af-fairs,
representatives from state-recognized tribes, and
other stakeholders are currently working to clarify and
improve this situation. In the meantime, child welfare
agencies should continue to seize every opportunity to
partner with state-recognized tribes and to engage all
American Indians using respectful, family-centered child
welfare practice.
Children’s Services Practice Notes
Family & Children’s Resource Program
Jordan Institute for Families
UNC–School of Social Work
Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
State Courier # 17-61-04
RESOURCES FOR LEARNING MORE ABOUT WORKING WITH DIVERSITY
Reprinted from the Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008
PLEASE NOTE
PRACTICE NOTES TO DISCONTINUE
PRINT PUBLICATION
Future issues of Children’s Services Practice Notes will be
available only online at www.practicenotes.org. If you
would like to receive notification via e-mail when new issues
appear, send an e-mail with “subscribe CSPN” in the
subject line to jdmcmaho@email.unc.edu.
Race Matters Toolkit
ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION
Designed to help advocates mobilize resources for vulnera-ble
populations of color in order to reduce racial disparities/
disproportionality and promote racial equity.
Culturally Competent Practice With Latino Families
GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES (2007)
Provides participants with an introduction to the basic con-cepts
of culturally competent practice and specific skills and
knowledge for culturally competent practice with Latino fam-ilies.
Racial Disparity in the Child Welfare System
URBAN INSTITUTE (2008)
Panelists in this audio presentation consider how child wel-fare
system administrators are leading initiatives to address
racial disparity.
Introduction to Cultural Competence: A Training
Tool
FRIENDS NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD
ABUSE PREVENTION
Explains strategies for assessing cultural competency and
improving the ethnic and linguistic responsiveness of family
support programs.
Culturally Competent Strategies for Strengthening
Families
FRIENDS NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD
ABUSE PREVENTION (2006)
Offers links to audio files and materials from a teleconference
that featured presentations on culturally competent practice
within the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention program.
Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare in the
Context of Cultural Competence
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK (2008)
Offers six online training modules addressing issues related
to cultural competence, child welfare, and evidence-based
practice.
Knowing Who You Are: Video
CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
Presents the perspectives of youth in care, child welfare pro-fessionals,
and foster parents about why race and ethnicity
matter and the importance of integrating racial and ethnic
identity into child welfare practice.